Newportia (Ectonocryptops) Crabill, 1977

Fig. 14

Type species. Ectonocryptops kraepelini Crabill, 1977 (by original designation).

Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite slightly convex, lacking projections; tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted (fig. 2 in Shelley & Mercurio 2008). Ultimate leg tibia practically twice the length of tarsus 1 (Fig. 14), with distomedial ventral uncinate process and glandular pores medially; tarsus 2 globose, small but well-developed (Fig. 14).

Number of species. 1.

Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 405), suggested as a subgenus of Newportia by Vahtera et al. (2013: 589). The most recent account on this genus is Shelley & Mercurio (2008: 66).

(!) Newportia (Ectonocryptoides) Shelley & Mercurio, 2005

Figs 15–18

Type species. Ectonocryptoides quadrimeropus Shelley & Mercurio, 2005 (by original designation).

Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite evidently convex, with “two low, additionally chitinised, lobes” (Schileyko 2009: 529); tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted (Fig. 17). Ultimate leg tarsus 1 slightly longer than tibia (Fig. 15), the latter with glandular pores ventrally, without distomedial uncinate process (see also fig. 1b in Cupul-Magaña 2015); tarsus 2 absent or rudimentary.

Number of species. 2.

Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 405), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 12, 13); suggested as a subgenus of Newportia by Vahtera et al. (2013: 589), treated as a subgenus in Cupul-Magaña (2015). The most recent morphological accounts on Ectonocryptoides are those of Schileyko (2009) and Koch et al. (2010).